On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Certainly we *could* change it, but it's not at all clear that it's a good
>>> idea. The current behavior seemed sensible when it was implemented, and
>>> it has stood f
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yes, the original proposal was that we should be relaxed about it.
...in both directions i.e. DROP TABLE would work on a VIEW and DROP
VIEW on a table. That definitely seems like it's going too far.
> Another possibility that would also seem
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> This constraint was added to the partitioned table and inherited from
> there. If user wants to drop that constraint for some reason, this
> error message doesn't help. The error message tells why he can't drop
> it, but doesn't tell, directl
On 2018/07/03 11:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> This constraint was added to the partitioned table and inherited from
>> there. If user wants to drop that constraint for some reason, this
>> error message doesn't help. The error message tells wh
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 04:31:32PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached an updated patch including copy function support for logical
> slots as well as physical slots. Please review it.
I had a look at this patch.
As the output plugin can be changed for logical slots, having two
functions is
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:31:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
> gathered here? Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
> of words and comments you think is most adapted as the primary author of
> the featur
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> This constraint was added to the partitioned table and inherited from
>> there. If user wants to drop that constraint for some reason, this
>> error message doesn't help. The error mess
On 2 July 2018 at 02:23, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> So I have this immediate problem: a PGXS build of a module, specifically
> an hstore transform for a non-core PL, is much harder than it should be
> because it has no way to get at hstore.h since that file is never
> installed anywhere.
>
> Should t
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:59:33PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 10:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:07:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I'd rather keep an elog(ERROR) than completely remove the check.
>>
>> +1.
>
> Attached
Okay, the patch looks logical
On 2018-Jul-03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:31:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
> > gathered here? Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
> > of words and comments you think is mo
On 3 July 2018 at 16:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, the patch looks logically correct to me, I just tweaked the
> comments as per the attached. I would also back-patch that down to v11
> to keep the code consistent with HEAD.. What do you think?
Thanks for fixing it up. It looks fine apart
2018-07-03 6:43 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer :
> On 2 July 2018 at 02:23, Andrew Gierth
> wrote:
>
>> So I have this immediate problem: a PGXS build of a module, specifically
>> an hstore transform for a non-core PL, is much harder than it should be
>> because it has no way to get at hstore.h since tha
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for fixing it up. It looks fine apart from "Temporation" should
> be "Temporary".
Of course, thanks.
> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any di
On 3 July 2018 at 18:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
>> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any different here than
>> what you did with the original commit.
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:31:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
>> gathered here? Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
>> of words and comments you think is most adapted as t
On 2018/07/03 15:16, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 18:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
>>> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any different here
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:29:36PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Why is this not near the beginning of expand_partitioned_rtentry()?
>
> Also, ISTM, this code would be unreachable because
> expand_inherited_rtentry would not call here if the above if statement is
> true, no?
FWIW, I understood tha
Just realized something...
On 2018/07/03 15:29, Amit Langote wrote:
> Sorry for jumping in late here. I have a comment on the patch.
>
> + /* if there are no partitions then treat this as non-inheritance case.
> */
> + if (partdesc->nparts == 0)
> + {
> + parentrte->inh
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
